"Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Quick Thoughts on TE Carpenter

It has now been several weeks since the Siouxlands Presbytery of the PCA handed down their terrible decision to find a strong presumption of guilt against TE Brian Carpenter on the charge of violating the ninth commandment. I have typed several blog posts related to this, but then not posted them (usually, I wait a bit, go back and read what I've written and decide to rewrite completely). I'm going to post this one, and it's going to be short and to the point. TE Carpenter has not broken the ninth commandment in regards to calling out proponents of the Federal Vision within the PCA. If he is telling the truth, he is, by definition NOT violating the ninth commandment (yes, I am aware that "speaking the truth unseasonably" is a violation of the ninth commandment, that is categorically NOT what happened with TE Carpenter). I've read the report of the committee investigating him. It's a joke. Assertions do not a case make. There must be evidence. There is none. Hurting people's feelings does not make a case. Having third parties take what you have said and run with it does not make a case. Yet, this is all there is to the case against TE Carpenter. There is no proof that he himself has violated the ninth commandment.

I will continue to pray for TE Carpenter, that he will be vindicated, and I will continue to pray for the Siouxlands Presbytery, that they will see through these charges for what they really are: unsubstantiated accusations that must be dismissed.

Anon: I have read the report of the committee that recommended finding a strong presumption of guilt against TE Carpenter. I will simply say, there was no evidence of violations of the ninth commandment in the report.

Thanks, Seth, for posting this. If there were a strong presumption of guilt, then that strength lies in the clarity of the evidence. Being part of the deliberations is irrelevant - the court case is laid out in the report. A report's function is to construct and lay out the case, so that all can see the evidence that led the committee to come to its decision.

As you've said, no such evidence appears in the report. Is such evidence hiding somewhere else? Was there something in the deliberations that convinced the committee, but that they chose not to communicate in the report of the case? Of course not. What they presented as evidence is the case they believe constitutes strong evidence - i.e. it's the best they think they've got - and as evidence for violations of the 9th commandment, the report falls woefully short.

I’ve not commented on the matter before, and being long-winded I’ll exercise less restraint than our beloved brother Stark, essentially referencing the “Beholding the Beauty” blog, here: http://beholdingthebeauty.blogspot.com/2010/09/further-confirmation-of-reasons-why-im.html.

“The accusations concerning TE Carpenter are specific. While we might wish to discuss the ‘tone’ of bloggings, the attitude displayed during discussions, or the dangers of blogging in general, TE Carpenter was accused simply of breaking the ninth commandment, as expanded in the Larger Catechism, Questions 144 and 145.…

The committee does not believe that TE Carpenter has been sinless in this matter.”

I’m wondering if the 9th Commandment was actually cited, or merely an “expanded” testament of it in Westminster Catechism 77 & 78, promoting our neighbour’s good name and forbidding whatsoever is injurious to our neighbour’s good name? And adding more, that, “as TE Carpenter acts in submission to Presbytery, he should acknowledge that Presbytery has not found TE Moon guilty of heinous theological error”; that is, as I read their assertions, TE Carpenter is in no position to judge theological worthiness or unworthiness without the added caution of thorough consult and determination by the court, and so thusly protecting of TE Moon’s “‘good name’”?

It seems that the committee is not delineating a rationale for a case presenting 9th Commandment breaking by TE Carpenter, but rather presenting a case, coloured by assessment of “attitude”, of a lack of caution or impatience by TE Carpenter in discerning theological error without further clarity from the court other than what Reformed tradition of court expression has made known. And where the committee emphasises of “particularity of concern” any expression of innocence, of being guiltless or “sinless in this matter”, am I wrong to read that any “self-confident” defence of a charge before the committee (in deference to the court), whether by TE Carpenter, TE Moon, or indeed any member before consideration might be prejudicial of inappropriate humility, where subscription to guilt of a charge is to be subsumed by the court regarding any member before it, the which member must then offensively prove innocence rather than offering defence to a charge already in assumption?

Further, it would appear to me that “appointing ourselves as God’s necessary actors” is a separate matter of charge entirely from first, an ‘expansion’ from the 9th Commandment (as worthy an one as is the Westminster catechisms), and, second, a direct reference to the explicit Scriptural delineation of the 9th Commandment; and especially so as regarding that the committee was then instructed, “to attach to it specific evidence substantiating this conclusion”, which would indicate to me in common reading that such evidence may have been absent in the committee report by which the Siouxlands Presbytery determined a “strong presumption of guilt”. I do not deem to either characterize or mischaracterise the court, but simply convey what appears in my reading of publically disclosed presentations. (hopefully to be continued)

I’ve not commented on the matter before, and being long-winded I’ll exercise less restraint than our beloved brother Stark, essentially referencing the “Beholding the Beauty” blog, here: http://beholdingthebeauty.blogspot.com/2010/09/further-confirmation-of-reasons-why-im.html.

“The accusations concerning TE Carpenter are specific. While we might wish to discuss the ‘tone’ of bloggings, the attitude displayed during discussions, or the dangers of blogging in general, TE Carpenter was accused simply of breaking the ninth commandment, as expanded in the Larger Catechism, Questions 144 and 145.…

The committee does not believe that TE Carpenter has been sinless in this matter.”

I’m wondering if the 9th Commandment was actually cited, or merely an “expanded” testament of it in Westminster Catechism 77 & 78, promoting our neighbour’s good name and forbidding whatsoever is injurious to our neighbour’s good name? And adding more, that, “as TE Carpenter acts in submission to Presbytery, he should acknowledge that Presbytery has not found TE Moon guilty of heinous theological error”; that is, as I read their assertions, TE Carpenter is in no position to judge theological worthiness or unworthiness without the added caution of thorough consult and determination by the court, and so thusly protecting of TE Moon’s “‘good name’”?

It seems that the committee is not delineating a rationale for a case presenting 9th Commandment breaking by TE Carpenter, but rather presenting a case, coloured by assessment of “attitude”, of a lack of caution or impatience by TE Carpenter in discerning theological error without further clarity from the court other than what Reformed tradition of court expression has made known. And where the committee emphasises of “particularity of concern” any expression of innocence, of being guiltless or “sinless in this matter”, am I wrong to read that any “self-confident” defence of a charge before the committee (in deference to the court), whether by TE Carpenter, TE Moon, or indeed any member before consideration might be prejudicial of inappropriate humility, where subscription to guilt of a charge is to be subsumed by the court regarding any member before it, the which member must then offensively prove innocence rather than offering defence to a charge already in assumption?

Further, it would appear to me that “appointing ourselves as God’s necessary actors” is a separate matter of charge entirely from first, an ‘expansion’ from the 9th Commandment (as worthy an one as is the Westminster catechisms), and, second, a direct reference to the explicit Scriptural delineation of the 9th Commandment; and especially so as regarding that the committee was then instructed, “to attach to it specific evidence substantiating this conclusion”, which would indicate to me in common reading that such evidence may have been absent in the committee report by which the Siouxlands Presbytery determined a “strong presumption of guilt”. I do not deem to either characterize or mischaracterise the court, but simply convey what appears in my reading of publically disclosed presentations.

I’ve not commented on the matter before, and being long-winded I’ll exercise less restraint than our beloved brother Stark, essentially referencing the “Beholding the Beauty” blog, here: http://beholdingthebeauty.blogspot.com/2010/09/further-confirmation-of-reasons-why-im.html.

“The accusations concerning TE Carpenter are specific. While we might wish to discuss the ‘tone’ of bloggings, the attitude displayed during discussions, or the dangers of blogging in general, TE Carpenter was accused simply of breaking the ninth commandment, as expanded in the Larger Catechism, Questions 144 and 145.…

The committee does not believe that TE Carpenter has been sinless in this matter.”

I’m wondering if the 9th Commandment was actually cited, or merely an “expanded” testament of it in Westminster Catechism 77 & 78, promoting our neighbour’s good name and forbidding whatsoever is injurious to our neighbour’s good name? And adding more, that, “as TE Carpenter acts in submission to Presbytery, he should acknowledge that Presbytery has not found TE Moon guilty of heinous theological error”; that is, as I read their assertions, TE Carpenter is in no position to judge theological worthiness or unworthiness without the added caution of thorough consult and determination by the court, and so thusly protecting of TE Moon’s “‘good name’”?

It seems that the committee is not delineating a rationale for a case presenting 9th Commandment breaking by TE Carpenter, but rather presenting a case, coloured by assessment of “attitude”, of a lack of caution or impatience by TE Carpenter in discerning theological error without further clarity from the court other than what Reformed tradition of court expression has made known. And where the committee emphasises of “particularity of concern” any expression of innocence, of being guiltless or “sinless in this matter”, am I wrong to read that any “self-confident” defence of a charge before the committee (in deference to the court), whether by TE Carpenter, TE Moon, or indeed any member before consideration might be prejudicial of inappropriate humility, where subscription to guilt of a charge is to be subsumed by the court regarding any member before it, the which member must then offensively prove innocence rather than offering defence to a charge already in assumption?

Further, it would appear to me that “appointing ourselves as God’s necessary actors” is a separate matter of charge entirely from first, an ‘expansion’ from the 9th Commandment (as worthy an one as is the Westminster catechisms), and, second, a direct reference to the explicit Scriptural delineation of the 9th Commandment; and especially so as regarding that the committee was then instructed, “to attach to it specific evidence substantiating this conclusion”, which would indicate to me in common reading that such evidence may have been absent in the committee report by which the Siouxlands Presbytery determined a “strong presumption of guilt”. I do not deem to either characterize or mischaracterise the court, but simply convey what appears in my reading of publically disclosed presentations.

I am both outspoken and inspoken concerning what I (without further court discernment) deem as inappropriate netiquette among Christians on the Web, and our general failures to display and encourage adequate measures of neighbourly love. In fact I find before a watching world that we Christians have a terrible reputation in being rather uncharitable as Internet neighbours. But, having myself been judged and booted from even Reformed Internet communion (by supposedly accountable Presbyterian ministers) on what I find as hypocritical abuse of applying the 9th Commandment, and whereas I’ve witnessed both teaching elders and ruling elders expressly violate the Scriptural delineation of the 9th Commandment in U.S. Federal Court to the harm and even death of members under their care, and without any present amelioration or just accountability before the Church courts, there is no doubt in my mind nor need of patient waiting regarding court declaration that greater charity is warranted in these matters and greater disciple exerted privately, publically, on the Net, in committees and congregations, and before the courts. I value the privilege and right of court discipline and brotherly love and care. There isn’t a moment that flitters by that I am without some very present reminder and culpability in sin; but, and I am here making no specific accusation, when due Christian love, Church authority, or shepherding stewardship are arrogantly abusing and betraying of one another it is indeed a lowest form of hell-bent disgrace shattering and scaring many lives and the earthly beauty of Christ’s Bride.

Whether seeking to protect the Church from strange doctrine, protect a Christian due our love, or protect a member before the courts, Christian love must be without dissimulation, but genuine, strong, ardently and vigorously engaged, and never hiding behind some feigned expansion of a 9th Commandment that would in any way nullify loving “THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF” (Lk. 10:27, NASB), with “neighbor” being one who bandages up our wounds, taking care of us, and having mercy on us, quite beyond passing us on some other side of ‘priestly’ or ‘Levitical’ ordinance. If dear brother Carpenter and the Siouxlands Presbytery have such love in mind by their actions then God bless an adequate display of as much without any posturing of pretence. Surely all involved are both dangerous and beautiful, worthy of a fair defence and every loving concern? I’m inclined to think the courts have nobler business of such than presently churning, but then perhaps my view of the courts is too high or wishful, or without due sensibility to what they deem as of great import for God’s people.